After Britain’s decision to leave the European Union via popular referendum last month, political turmoil ensued. But don’t let the near-collapse of the British government make you think governments will be dissuaded from using this form of supposedly direct democracy in future: Referendums are more popular than ever. In fact, Britain’s is just the latest in a recent surge in Europe,and, despite its much-fretted-over results, it seems to have set the stage for even more to come: speculation has already begun that France, Italy, the Netherlands and others may soon follow suit.

It’s easy to see why. Referendums, which bypass elected representatives by submitting a proposed law or public measure to a direct popular vote, let citizens vent their frustrations with the powerful elites that run their governments. Today, when large groups are complaining of exclusion from politics, and when frustration with immigration, globalization, perceived disenfranchisement and elitism have fueled the rise of Donald Trump in the United States and nationalist groups across Europe, referendums are a particularly useful mechanism for politicians who want to make sure their people feel heard. Many leaders view them as a safety valve for populist anger.

But, in our experience working on referendum campaigns around the world with a major polling firm, we have learned that referendums are vulnerable to a number of serious flaws — flaws which call into question claims that referendums are a more direct form of democracy than other types of elections, and which should make governments think twice before offering them.

Here are a few important things to consider:

Confusion can hijack referendums

The irony of a referendum is that while it typically asks voters to check a simple “yes” or “no,” it is actually one of the most complicated forms of voting: The policy issues at stake are complex; the wording of the question on the ballot is often technical; during the campaign, voters are often bombarded with information from political players and advocacy groups they have never hear of. There is a reason why “If you don’t know, vote no” is a common slogan in these referendum campaigns.

At worst, this confusion allows voters to turn the question they are being asked into a different question they would prefer to answer. For instance, in the 2015 Greece referendum on the bailout package, the people had to vote on an extremely complex and technical question about public finance. Greek voters were perplexed about what would happen if they voted yes or no, and they were given just over a week to make a decision. Even with 61 percent voting against the bailout, many were unsure how to interpret the results. Was this a rejection of austerity, a rejection of European institutions, or did the complex ballot wording leave the meaning too open to voters’ interpretation to say?

A June 7 constitutional referendum on gender equality in the Bahamas provides another example of confusion hijacking the vote. In this conservative, Christian country, rumors spread that voting “yes” could lead to same-sex marriage, even though the issues on the ballot were only about gender equality and its role in citizenship rights. By Election Day, many were not voting on whether they supported equal rights for men and women, but whether they supported same-sex marriage and LGBT rights. Ultimately, 79 percent voted against the gender nondiscrimination bill.

Lower participation means they are often not truly democratic

Studies have shown that referendums usually inspire lower turnouts than general elections — and how much lower is hard for pollsters like us to predict. This means that despite their resemblance to direct democracy in action, referendum results often depend less on the true balance of public opinion and more on which side has the more energized supporters. If the idea is to let the people decide, the truth is that minority opinions can easily take the wheel. Politicians offering up referendums cannot assume that mainstream views will prevail.

In response to this problem, some countries require turnout thresholds in order to protect against minority views skewing results. But while this may solve that problem, these thresholds are also problematic — they are arbitrary, encourage nonparticipation for those who oppose a measure and can make interpreting results difficult. An April 2016 Italy referendum on offshore drilling and a February 2015 Slovakia referendum on banning same-sex marriage failed to drum up enough voters to pass; analysts will never know how many stayed home out of apathy, and how many out of strategy.

Referendums can shine a spotlight on fringe movements

Many smart referendum campaigns unite support across partisan lines, so as not to become a protest vote against the current government.The downside for governments is that this can leave room for fringe groups to take up opposition space and grab widespread attention. The recent referendum in the Netherlands, in which 61 percent voted against ratifying an association agreement with Ukraine, is a good example. Extreme or marginal figures like the far-right anti-Islam parliamentarian Geert Wilders, the Socialist Party and the satirical shock blog GeenStijl gained a mainstream following and media attention — and Wilders’ party, the PVV, is topping opinion polls in the wake of Brexit. The Dutch government, which called for the referendum and supports the agreement, has been left in the unenviable position of negotiating a ratification deal (the referendum was non-binding) without majority support.

We saw many of these factors at work in the U.K.’s recent referendum. It was clear that confusion clouded the referendum process when many voters expressed regret over their votes. The core issues of leaving the European Union were obscured when the then UKIP leader Nigel Farage made populist anger around immigration the center of the Leave campaign, and when his campaign dubiously promised to send the £350 million a week it said was being sent to the EU to the National Health Service instead (a promise he has since walked back). The campaign went from being about a whole spate of complex issues to a few hot-button issues. One important way Brexit was different from these above rules for referendums, though, was that turnout was actually quite high.

None of this is to say that referendums are always pernicious. They can unite voters across political lines, and provide leaders a mandate for divisive issues. Ireland’s 2015 same-sex marriage referendum — the first time a country adopted marriage equality by national referendum — was an inspiring and important milestone in the world’s changing attitudes on the issue. The government decided to put the decision to the people, and instead of stoking negative rage, the public narrative was generally positive. Politicians from all major parties spoke eloquently about their own families and children — some even coming out themselves — and young people rang their grannies to discuss the vote.

But the Brexit outcome shows that politicians may want to think twice before turning to referendums as an easy solution for populist frustrations. Direct democracy is often anything but direct.

Kristi Lowe and Kelsi Suter are a vice president and senior associate, respectively, at Greenberg Quinlan Rosner, a global polling and campaign management consultancy.

Related stories on these topics:

ironworker

Of course, referendums are “bad” because are the only democratic way to block the unilateral trans-national decisions and actions regardless national interest.

Posted on 7/6/16 | 5:20 PM CET

Enda

Glad to see you referenced the marriage equality referendum in Ireland but it at least enjoyed across the board political support. The first Nice and Lisbon Treaty referendums however are examples of how these votes often become about something other than the issue being voted on and simply a way to punish an unpopular government.

Posted on 7/6/16 | 5:31 PM CET

Tom Cullem

It didn’t “backfire”. In fact, if those “reforms” everyone is talking about that the EU has needed for so long but refuse to implement come into being, you will have BREXIT and direct democracy to thank. Why should the working-class up north not getting any of the benefits of the EU vote for something to make the wealthy and spoilt youth in London happy?!

Why should Scottish fishermen have voted to stay in the EU?

Backfired? Strictly in the eye of the beholder. The EU has only itself to blame. If it doesn’t put in those reforms and goes all heavy-handed, it will see more direct democracy, more exits, and more collapse of its precious “Project”.

The EU ignored the handwriting on the wall. So did the UK government. They reaped what they sowed. And about bloody time, because nothing else would ever have gotten through.

When Custer was killed at the Battle of the Little Big Horn, Sioux women who then flooded onto the battlefield pierced holes in his eardrums, chortling that maybe now he would be able to hear what he refused to hear in the runup to the battle (namely, his Crow scouts’ warnings about the size of the Sioux encampment he thought he could wipe out in a half hour).

Think of BREXIT that way.

Posted on 7/6/16 | 6:10 PM CET

Artur Sixto

Representative democracy is often anything but democracy.

Even from the point of view of a remain deffender, it is disturbing to read that the UK referendum “backfired”. Does it mean that referenda are just a political tool to obtain the citizens blessing of things preordained? What notion of democracy is this? What contempt is this of a legitimate decision by the demos? Who is to say that Brexit is not actually going to be beneficial at the end of the day, for all parties involved?

Brexit may have been a misguided decision but misguidance leading to it has been precisely the work of many of the same politicians regretting it. It is dishonest or shortsighted to blame the democratic tool applied, referenda in general.

The very serious problem we have is of insufficient democracy leading to ever less of it, to the point that there is ample reason today to fear its complete loss. Because the way we managed democracy over the last half century, we undermined it and it has deteriorated so much. We find ourselves in an unresponsive system that blatantly failed to give the people what the people want since at least 40-50 years ago, with social inequity shooting up to give an example.

We need a lot more democracy than we have, which is so little as to question whether we really have any at all. I do not think we have it. Referenda are an inescapable part, a precious tool to empower citizens and evolve towards real democracy.

Posted on 7/6/16 | 6:54 PM CET

Filippo

Have you ever considered elites not frustrating citizens anymore as a possible solution? Or this too would be an undemocratic issue that always backfires?

Standing ovation for Artur Sixto’s comment

Posted on 7/6/16 | 7:05 PM CET

emmbee

They’re only unpopular if you’re on the losing side.

I voted Leave and was – and still am – delighted by the result. This initial period of turmoil was not unexpected. Don’t believe everything you read on social media and in the papers, because, surprise surprise, life here is going on pretty much as before.

Posted on 7/7/16 | 12:07 AM CET

Blob

@emmbee

How can you be so flippant about the impact of Brexit. Even Wales and Iceland are now better than England at football… WALES and ICELAND. They said there’d be repercussions…

Posted on 7/7/16 | 1:15 AM CET

Lichdar

” In this conservative, Christian country, rumors spread that voting “yes” could lead to same-sex marriage, even though the issues on the ballot were only about gender equality and its role in citizenship rights. ”

Oh please, does it really sound like a weird slippery slope argument? Increasing liberalization has had the same results everywhere unless stopped.

Posted on 7/7/16 | 4:08 AM CET

J

One thing we haven’t tried yet is the “running referendum”. Put the question online, then people may vote and even change their votes up to a certain deadline (e.g a month hence). That way, you’d solve most of the problems listed above ( complexity by giving more time to think it through, minority skewing, participation if the results look like they’re going a certain way, etc…)